This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I'm guessing this is an error? HertzaHaeon 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems like it moved back again, so I have tried to move it.
Whats up skip
00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has the following sentence:
"Tokyo has the largest metropolitan economy in the world, despite falling in ranks in recent years due to economic stagnation "
Actually, Tokyo (and Japan) are in an economic expansion that is now (as of July 2007) in its fifth year. References to "stagnation" and "recession" are way out of date at this point. (And, as anyone who's actually lived in Tokyo can testify, even during the "recession" of the 1990s, Japan looked amazingly prosperous).
I removed references to outdated statistics (1995) and poor economic conditions.
Whats up skip
23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This edit was reverted without comment by user:Sasanoha. I suspect there are two issues:
I'm inclined to reintroduce the wording changes, but would be interested in other opinions about both of these. My reason for changing to "Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tokyo-to) is ..." is to make the English, Kanji, and transliteration match themselves and the infobox heading, and also to clearly identify the article topic (which is the subnational entity, not the "city" or the metropolitan region, or the 23 wards, or ...). My understanding is that the official English name of the prefecture is "Tokyo Metropolis". -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else think this image is entirely too professional looking to be a new user's personal image? I've looked a bit but can't find it on the web (Google doesn't let you search by pixel size, which would be real handy). If anyone else has seen this image anywhere, please let me know. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Tokyo panorama image uploaded recently, I emailed the owner of the Photo Dream site ( http://www.photodream.org/) to ask whether he recognized the image. He has replied to say that the "panorama image" in question looks like it has been cropped from this image http://www.photodream.org/fujitv/fujitvsum/page_thumb1.html which was also taken by him. This explains the odd sizing. The unique coloration is a result of special night-photography lens filters, which a casual photographer is unlikely to possess. He also asks that the image be removed from Wikipedia, as it is being used without permission. DAJF 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
画像のサイズを毎回大きくしている理由は、見やすくするためです。サイズを指定しないと、画像が小さすぎて見づらいからです。-- Sasanoha 15:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As this is the English Wikipedia, I would respectfully request that when communicating, you use English. Also please put edit summaries in English so people understand what the purpose of changes were. Thank you! Ariel♥ Gold 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images recommends not using centered images and not using large images. This article now has two, including one in its own section. My attempt to address this was reverted. Any other suggestions? -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Please look at This.There is a "Cityscape" image in the article on the city. -- Sasanoha 02:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So why isn't Tokyo considered to be a city? Only because it also has another classification? According to the city article:
A city is an urban settlement with a particularly important status which differentiates it from a town.
Now how does Tokyo not fit into this criterion? Reginmund 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's not quite the definition of a metropolis but then, in that case, the cities inside of Tokyo could be considered cities within a city. Maybe there is some more jurisdicial definition of a city... I can't see why a CDP can't be considered a city either. Reginmund 03:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So it just got so big it turened into something bigger than a city (Meropolis)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.68.202 ( talk) 22:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not send the Tokyo map to the right. Arrangement is returned to the previous edition.-- Sasanoha 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a a problem with this section. It does not list the 23 wards but instead popular tourist areas in Tokyo. This should be fixed. -- Jonte-- 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have this radical proposal: why don't we merge Special wards of Tokyo into Tokyo? I agree that the current list of the 23 wards feels terse, and the problem is the distinction between these two articles is not obvious to many; that people would look for neighborhoods information currently in Special wards of Tokyo in the Tokyo article. It probably makes more sense to them (if not to us as we know more), for example, if Akihaba is mentioned in Tokyo. I think while this merger is logical (in that those wards are part of Tokyo), it poses a practical problem: The Tokyo article is already too long. So, I am still unsure about how this merger can be done if we want. But first what do you think? -- Taku 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the lateness of the response. I've thinking. Anyway, I would argue that we even make room for the merger by moving stuff in the article to separate articles. First to expand on my proposal, it seems to me that the current article is ambivalent about what Tokyo is. From the administrative point of view, Tokyo is a prefecture and the 23 wards is one of parts of the prefecture (as is western Tokyo). So, the articles are organized accordingly, but not to the fullest extent. For example, in the current structure it is conceivable that the the 23 wards article has sections like education or history, for, for instance, the University of Tokyo is located in the 23 wards. But that would be duplication. In other words, the Tokyo article, inevitably, contains a lot of stuff that belong, strictly speaking, to the the 23 wards article. The obvious solution is the merger. (By the way, The term the 23 wards is defined at least three times in the Tokyo article, once in the lead and two times in Geography and administrative divisions. This is excessive.) Now, the "how" part, which is we should organize materials related to Tokyo in more categorical manner than the current half-administrative manner. That is to say, we create new Geography and administrative divisions of Tokyo or something by splitting off the section, or moving some stuff to Politics of Tokyo after being renamed to Politics and administration of Tokyo or something, or maybe there would no renaming. Additionally, we move stuff like islands and the list of villages to that new, renamed or existing article. Since the 23 wards article contains some legal technicalities, which we don't want in the Tokyo article, that stuff also goes to this article. This actually makes more sense since we really should discuss the administration of Tokyo is in one and only one place. The proposal sounds quite feasible to me, but still love to know the problems. -- Taku 03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
user:Cosc effectively rewrote the article as this version. I've reverted to the version before this rewrite and suggest we discuss whether such a dramatic rewrite is necessary or warranted. Among many other changes, the rewrite uses a custom template for the infobox rather than the standard one used for the other prefectures. I think unless there is some sort of consensus the rewrite is an improvement it would be better to make slightly less sweeping changes. -- Rick Block ( talk) 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
What are the goals of the rewrite? Fg2 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Cosc 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Cosc's repeated creations of templates and insertions of apparent copyvio's is bordering on disruptive, no arguments there. But I have a question regarding the current template. Template:Tokyo-Infobox, a single-use template, is being used in this article. What advantage does that have over using Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan, which is in use for all the other prefecture pages? Tarc 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Having a full listing of every single ward, city, district and island in the main article is counterproductive. This is better left to the existing Tokyo Metropolis template and the separate islands articles. It would also be good to have a separate article for Sport in Tokyo, explaining some of the sports history and culture as well as removing the current list of teams from the main article. These two changes would go a long way towards simplifying the article without requiring a full re-write. 221.89.167.148 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Japan Infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. This is the grossly over-simplified infobox that was apparently created to replace the Tokyo-infobox currently used. — DAJF 13:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)\
Just as a favour i have added flags to the 'Sister Cities' section of the article just to make it more presentable. (♠ Taifar ious1♠) 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this image is good enough to add to the article. But the article already has a lot of photos and I have no idea where to put the image. What do you think? Oda Mari ( talk) 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please give agreement to my sweeping changes. Please do not oppose one-sidedly. Please teach the part that should be improved. -- Cosc 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, what should I discuss? The discussion is not advanced.-- Cosc 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
City | Prefecture | Castle |
---|---|---|
Sendai | Miyagi | Aoba Castle |
Nagoya | Aichi | Nagoya Castle |
What is the population of tokyo actually?? 35 million or 12,570,000(8,520,000 in special wards)
60.51.108.28 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added several what I hope are high quality citations in response to the recent requests (from this edit]). There are two remaining "original research" tags and 10 more citation requests. The original research tags are for:
Of the 10 remaining citation requests, 9 are for things that seem to be pretty obviously true (although citations from reliable sources should still be found). The one that's not obviously true is the first one: Central Tokyo, like Osaka, has been designed since about the turn of the century (1900) to be centered around major train stations in a high-density fashion. From the sources I've found, I'm not sure this was design so much as simply what happened. If anyone can find a reliable source (either way) for this, that'd be great. -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, many thanks for doing the hard work on this top-importance article. Fg2 05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[Copied from Reference for "Tokio" romanization]
A recent edit specified a width for a photograph in this article. The edit summary said "don't change the size, because 130px is the just fit size." It's nice to try to make things look great. In fact, I've tried to edit many articles to make the image sizes just right. However, it never works. The most important reason is that different screens have different widths. What looks right on one display looks wrong on another one. So we should give up trying to tailor image sizes and instead use the default size. The discussion that went into the Wikipedia Manual of Style has more information about this topic. Fg2 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I last brought up this topic a few things have changed.
WikiSatellite view of Tokyo at WikiMapia - This map has got worse, more rubbish, very little information, many incorrect facts, spam and generally out of control. I really think the link to this map has to go. The real question is what should replace it.
Lonely Planet - Either my standards have changed or this map has. It now has very little interactivity, doesn't cover enough of Tokyo nor does it have enough detail. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/north_east_asia/tokyo/tokyo.htm
One of the fundermental problems with many maps is that none of the big map providers (those who supply Google, Yahoo! and MSN) have anything in English. This means that mashups based on any of these will tend to have a satellite or Japanese based maps underneath.
http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm - This is the problem for this map, but it does have significant embedded information and links to articles. (Might be why it is number one in Google)
Tokyo Tourism have some reasonable printed maps, but they are really lacking in the online field.
www.japan-guide.com have some reasonable maps for key areas of Tokyo, but they don't have a good overall map. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3011.html
http://www.jref.com/practical/tokyo_areas_map.shtml has some English, some interactivity, but is limited in its extent and does not have the detail offered by japan-guide.com's individual maps or the overall coverage and depth provided by japaneselifestyle.com.au's.
Does anyone else know of some good online maps?
Should we change the link to http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm?
Whats up skip ( talk) 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The Map has a bar that states 1000km but the Tokyo prefecture is tiny compared to the bar and yet the article says that tokyo has a area of 2,817 km. Am I reading this right.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I'm guessing this is an error? HertzaHaeon 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems like it moved back again, so I have tried to move it.
Whats up skip
00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has the following sentence:
"Tokyo has the largest metropolitan economy in the world, despite falling in ranks in recent years due to economic stagnation "
Actually, Tokyo (and Japan) are in an economic expansion that is now (as of July 2007) in its fifth year. References to "stagnation" and "recession" are way out of date at this point. (And, as anyone who's actually lived in Tokyo can testify, even during the "recession" of the 1990s, Japan looked amazingly prosperous).
I removed references to outdated statistics (1995) and poor economic conditions.
Whats up skip
23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This edit was reverted without comment by user:Sasanoha. I suspect there are two issues:
I'm inclined to reintroduce the wording changes, but would be interested in other opinions about both of these. My reason for changing to "Tokyo Metropolis (東京都 Tokyo-to) is ..." is to make the English, Kanji, and transliteration match themselves and the infobox heading, and also to clearly identify the article topic (which is the subnational entity, not the "city" or the metropolitan region, or the 23 wards, or ...). My understanding is that the official English name of the prefecture is "Tokyo Metropolis". -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else think this image is entirely too professional looking to be a new user's personal image? I've looked a bit but can't find it on the web (Google doesn't let you search by pixel size, which would be real handy). If anyone else has seen this image anywhere, please let me know. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Tokyo panorama image uploaded recently, I emailed the owner of the Photo Dream site ( http://www.photodream.org/) to ask whether he recognized the image. He has replied to say that the "panorama image" in question looks like it has been cropped from this image http://www.photodream.org/fujitv/fujitvsum/page_thumb1.html which was also taken by him. This explains the odd sizing. The unique coloration is a result of special night-photography lens filters, which a casual photographer is unlikely to possess. He also asks that the image be removed from Wikipedia, as it is being used without permission. DAJF 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
画像のサイズを毎回大きくしている理由は、見やすくするためです。サイズを指定しないと、画像が小さすぎて見づらいからです。-- Sasanoha 15:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As this is the English Wikipedia, I would respectfully request that when communicating, you use English. Also please put edit summaries in English so people understand what the purpose of changes were. Thank you! Ariel♥ Gold 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images recommends not using centered images and not using large images. This article now has two, including one in its own section. My attempt to address this was reverted. Any other suggestions? -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Please look at This.There is a "Cityscape" image in the article on the city. -- Sasanoha 02:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So why isn't Tokyo considered to be a city? Only because it also has another classification? According to the city article:
A city is an urban settlement with a particularly important status which differentiates it from a town.
Now how does Tokyo not fit into this criterion? Reginmund 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's not quite the definition of a metropolis but then, in that case, the cities inside of Tokyo could be considered cities within a city. Maybe there is some more jurisdicial definition of a city... I can't see why a CDP can't be considered a city either. Reginmund 03:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So it just got so big it turened into something bigger than a city (Meropolis)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.68.202 ( talk) 22:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not send the Tokyo map to the right. Arrangement is returned to the previous edition.-- Sasanoha 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a a problem with this section. It does not list the 23 wards but instead popular tourist areas in Tokyo. This should be fixed. -- Jonte-- 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have this radical proposal: why don't we merge Special wards of Tokyo into Tokyo? I agree that the current list of the 23 wards feels terse, and the problem is the distinction between these two articles is not obvious to many; that people would look for neighborhoods information currently in Special wards of Tokyo in the Tokyo article. It probably makes more sense to them (if not to us as we know more), for example, if Akihaba is mentioned in Tokyo. I think while this merger is logical (in that those wards are part of Tokyo), it poses a practical problem: The Tokyo article is already too long. So, I am still unsure about how this merger can be done if we want. But first what do you think? -- Taku 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the lateness of the response. I've thinking. Anyway, I would argue that we even make room for the merger by moving stuff in the article to separate articles. First to expand on my proposal, it seems to me that the current article is ambivalent about what Tokyo is. From the administrative point of view, Tokyo is a prefecture and the 23 wards is one of parts of the prefecture (as is western Tokyo). So, the articles are organized accordingly, but not to the fullest extent. For example, in the current structure it is conceivable that the the 23 wards article has sections like education or history, for, for instance, the University of Tokyo is located in the 23 wards. But that would be duplication. In other words, the Tokyo article, inevitably, contains a lot of stuff that belong, strictly speaking, to the the 23 wards article. The obvious solution is the merger. (By the way, The term the 23 wards is defined at least three times in the Tokyo article, once in the lead and two times in Geography and administrative divisions. This is excessive.) Now, the "how" part, which is we should organize materials related to Tokyo in more categorical manner than the current half-administrative manner. That is to say, we create new Geography and administrative divisions of Tokyo or something by splitting off the section, or moving some stuff to Politics of Tokyo after being renamed to Politics and administration of Tokyo or something, or maybe there would no renaming. Additionally, we move stuff like islands and the list of villages to that new, renamed or existing article. Since the 23 wards article contains some legal technicalities, which we don't want in the Tokyo article, that stuff also goes to this article. This actually makes more sense since we really should discuss the administration of Tokyo is in one and only one place. The proposal sounds quite feasible to me, but still love to know the problems. -- Taku 03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
user:Cosc effectively rewrote the article as this version. I've reverted to the version before this rewrite and suggest we discuss whether such a dramatic rewrite is necessary or warranted. Among many other changes, the rewrite uses a custom template for the infobox rather than the standard one used for the other prefectures. I think unless there is some sort of consensus the rewrite is an improvement it would be better to make slightly less sweeping changes. -- Rick Block ( talk) 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
What are the goals of the rewrite? Fg2 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Cosc 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Cosc's repeated creations of templates and insertions of apparent copyvio's is bordering on disruptive, no arguments there. But I have a question regarding the current template. Template:Tokyo-Infobox, a single-use template, is being used in this article. What advantage does that have over using Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan, which is in use for all the other prefecture pages? Tarc 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Having a full listing of every single ward, city, district and island in the main article is counterproductive. This is better left to the existing Tokyo Metropolis template and the separate islands articles. It would also be good to have a separate article for Sport in Tokyo, explaining some of the sports history and culture as well as removing the current list of teams from the main article. These two changes would go a long way towards simplifying the article without requiring a full re-write. 221.89.167.148 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Japan Infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. This is the grossly over-simplified infobox that was apparently created to replace the Tokyo-infobox currently used. — DAJF 13:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)\
Just as a favour i have added flags to the 'Sister Cities' section of the article just to make it more presentable. (♠ Taifar ious1♠) 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this image is good enough to add to the article. But the article already has a lot of photos and I have no idea where to put the image. What do you think? Oda Mari ( talk) 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please give agreement to my sweeping changes. Please do not oppose one-sidedly. Please teach the part that should be improved. -- Cosc 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, what should I discuss? The discussion is not advanced.-- Cosc 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
City | Prefecture | Castle |
---|---|---|
Sendai | Miyagi | Aoba Castle |
Nagoya | Aichi | Nagoya Castle |
What is the population of tokyo actually?? 35 million or 12,570,000(8,520,000 in special wards)
60.51.108.28 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added several what I hope are high quality citations in response to the recent requests (from this edit]). There are two remaining "original research" tags and 10 more citation requests. The original research tags are for:
Of the 10 remaining citation requests, 9 are for things that seem to be pretty obviously true (although citations from reliable sources should still be found). The one that's not obviously true is the first one: Central Tokyo, like Osaka, has been designed since about the turn of the century (1900) to be centered around major train stations in a high-density fashion. From the sources I've found, I'm not sure this was design so much as simply what happened. If anyone can find a reliable source (either way) for this, that'd be great. -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, many thanks for doing the hard work on this top-importance article. Fg2 05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[Copied from Reference for "Tokio" romanization]
A recent edit specified a width for a photograph in this article. The edit summary said "don't change the size, because 130px is the just fit size." It's nice to try to make things look great. In fact, I've tried to edit many articles to make the image sizes just right. However, it never works. The most important reason is that different screens have different widths. What looks right on one display looks wrong on another one. So we should give up trying to tailor image sizes and instead use the default size. The discussion that went into the Wikipedia Manual of Style has more information about this topic. Fg2 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I last brought up this topic a few things have changed.
WikiSatellite view of Tokyo at WikiMapia - This map has got worse, more rubbish, very little information, many incorrect facts, spam and generally out of control. I really think the link to this map has to go. The real question is what should replace it.
Lonely Planet - Either my standards have changed or this map has. It now has very little interactivity, doesn't cover enough of Tokyo nor does it have enough detail. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/north_east_asia/tokyo/tokyo.htm
One of the fundermental problems with many maps is that none of the big map providers (those who supply Google, Yahoo! and MSN) have anything in English. This means that mashups based on any of these will tend to have a satellite or Japanese based maps underneath.
http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm - This is the problem for this map, but it does have significant embedded information and links to articles. (Might be why it is number one in Google)
Tokyo Tourism have some reasonable printed maps, but they are really lacking in the online field.
www.japan-guide.com have some reasonable maps for key areas of Tokyo, but they don't have a good overall map. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3011.html
http://www.jref.com/practical/tokyo_areas_map.shtml has some English, some interactivity, but is limited in its extent and does not have the detail offered by japan-guide.com's individual maps or the overall coverage and depth provided by japaneselifestyle.com.au's.
Does anyone else know of some good online maps?
Should we change the link to http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/tokyo/tokyomap.htm?
Whats up skip ( talk) 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The Map has a bar that states 1000km but the Tokyo prefecture is tiny compared to the bar and yet the article says that tokyo has a area of 2,817 km. Am I reading this right.